Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A company engaged in oil and gas production in Wyoming purchased electricity to operate equipment—primarily electronic submersible pumps and pumpjacks—that lifted fluids from underground, moved them to surface facilities for separation, and ultimately delivered the separated crude oil to custody transfer units (LACTs). The company sought a refund of sales tax paid on a portion of this electricity, arguing that the power was used for “transportation” and therefore exempt from sales tax under a statutory provision for those “engaged in the transportation business.” Utility studies commissioned by the company attempted to quantify what percentage of electricity was used for surface movement of fluids.A prior audit by the Wyoming Department of Revenue covering different years led to a similar refund dispute, but the Department conceded that the company was “engaged in the transportation business,” and the Wyoming State Board of Equalization ruled in the company’s favor. However, for the tax years at issue here, the Department denied the refund, asserting the company was not engaged in the transportation business as required by statute. The Board, after a contested hearing, again ruled for the company, finding it met the exemption, but the Department appealed, and the District Court certified the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that collateral estoppel did not bar the Department’s appeal because the issue of whether the company was engaged in the transportation business was not actually litigated in the prior proceeding, but stipulated. On the merits, the Court reversed the Board’s decision. It found that the company’s activities—moving crude oil from the wellhead to the LACT and separating water—were part of the production process, not transportation. The company was not engaged in the transportation business as contemplated by the statute and the electricity was used for production, not actual transportation purposes. Thus, the company was not entitled to a sales tax exemption or refund. View "Department of Revenue v. PacifiCorp" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, all residents, property owners, and taxpayers in Johnson County, Wyoming, brought a declaratory action against the county’s Board of Commissioners and the Wyoming Department of Audit (including its Director). Their complaint alleged that the Board mismanaged county finances and violated state fiscal statutes, and that the Department failed to enforce compliance. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions caused them tangible harm as taxpayers through increased taxes and fees. Their suit included ten counts, all seeking declarations of statutory or constitutional violations and requesting judicial oversight, including a forensic audit.The District Court of Johnson County reviewed the case after the Board and the Department moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The district court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient personal or particularized injury, and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The plaintiffs appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish prudential standing under Wyoming’s Brimmer test, which requires a tangible personal stake in the outcome, not just a generalized grievance. The court also declined to recognize taxpayer standing, since the plaintiffs’ claims of increased tax burdens were speculative and unsupported by specific factual allegations. Even though the plaintiffs argued the case was of great public importance, the court held that public interest alone is insufficient to relax standing requirements without a concrete, particularized harm. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of standing. View "Williams v. Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

Blake Brewer was arrested after stealing a sound system and monitor from a Walmart in Gillette, Wyoming, resulting in a loss of $1,887. At the time, Brewer was on parole for a prior fraud-by-check conviction. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to felony theft in exchange for a recommended sentence of 18 to 36 months and agreed to pay restitution. The plea agreement did not specify whether the new sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any sentence that might be reinstated following a pending parole revocation for his earlier conviction.The District Court of Campbell County accepted Brewer’s guilty plea and imposed the recommended sentence. During the oral pronouncement, the court was silent regarding whether the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively to any reinstated sentence for the prior offense. In its written judgment, however, the court ordered Brewer’s sentence to run consecutive to any other sentence. After a motion from the State, the court issued an order nunc pro tunc to correct the sentence’s duration but retained the consecutive language. Brewer appealed, arguing that the written judgment imposed an illegal sentence because the oral pronouncement did not specify consecutive sentencing and the written order referenced a sentence not yet reinstated by the parole board.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo, applying its precedent from Keefe v. State, 2024 WY 93, 555 P.3d 492 (Wyo. 2024). The court held that when a sentencing court is silent on whether a sentence runs concurrently or consecutively, Wyoming law presumes the sentences run consecutively. The written judgment merely confirmed this presumption. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Brewer’s sentence was not illegal. View "Brewer v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A police officer in Casper, Wyoming, observed a pickup truck driven by Mark Davis traveling slowly and approaching a stop sign. The officer noticed Davis activated his right turn signal only shortly before stopping at the intersection, estimating the signal was turned on no more than twenty feet before the turn, rather than the statutorily required 100 feet. After stopping Davis, the officer discovered an open beer can and learned Davis’s license was suspended. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Davis was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and felony possession with intent to deliver.Davis filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop because he had activated his turn signal more than 100 feet before the turn. At the suppression hearing in the District Court of Natrona County, the officer testified about his training in estimating distances, and Davis’s expert witness presented calculations based on the dash cam video, but conceded uncertainty about Davis’s speed. The district court reviewed the video and testimony, ultimately finding the officer’s estimate credible and concluding the State met its burden to show reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court denied the motion to suppress, and Davis entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, deferring to its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviewing constitutional questions de novo. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Davis violated the turn signal statute, justifying the stop. The district court’s findings were supported by the record, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Scott Drewry, a former police sergeant with the Greybull Police Department, left his position following an internal investigation into his conduct during a DUI investigation and other disciplinary issues. After his resignation, Drewry and the Town of Greybull entered into a settlement agreement that included a non-disparagement clause prohibiting the Town and Chief Brenner from making negative statements about Drewry regarding the investigation, termination, or resignation. Later, when Drewry was offered employment with the Basin Police Department, Chief Brenner issued a memorandum to Greybull officers and local officials, stating that Drewry had a history of deception and would not be considered a credible witness in Greybull investigations. Drewry sued for breach of the settlement agreement, defamation per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The District Court of Big Horn County granted summary judgment to Chief Brenner and the Town on all claims. The court found that the non-disparagement clause only covered the blood draw investigation and that the memorandum was truthful and conditionally privileged. It also concluded that Chief Brenner was entitled to qualified immunity, precluding the tort claims, and that there was insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct for the emotional distress claim.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case de novo. It held that qualified immunity barred Drewry’s claims for defamation per se and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Chief Brenner and the Town, affirming summary judgment on those claims. However, the court found that the phrase “the investigation” in the settlement agreement’s non-disparagement clause was ambiguous, creating genuine issues of material fact about its scope and whether the memorandum breached the agreement. The court reversed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Drewry v. Brenner" on Justia Law

Police and medical personnel responded to a motel room in Casper, Wyoming, where they found Chance Arias deceased with injuries consistent with assault and strangulation. Surveillance footage showed James Mavigliano and Amber Cook entering and leaving the room multiple times. Mavigliano was later found nearby with a blue duffle bag containing a broken, bloody lamp, and he possessed the room key and drug paraphernalia. After being advised of his rights, Mavigliano admitted to killing Arias, describing a physical altercation that escalated to him striking Arias with a lamp and strangling him with the lamp’s cord. He acknowledged that Arias did not physically threaten or attack him.The State charged Mavigliano with second-degree murder and possession of a controlled substance. The case was tried before the District Court of Natrona County. At trial, the defense argued self-defense, and the jury was instructed that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mavigliano did not act in self-defense. The jury was also instructed on the requirement of unanimity for its verdict. The verdict form did not include a special interrogatory regarding self-defense, and defense counsel did not request one or object to the form. The jury found Mavigliano guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced accordingly.On appeal, Mavigliano challenged only his second-degree murder conviction, arguing that the district court committed plain error by not including a self-defense interrogatory on the verdict form. The Supreme Court of Wyoming held that there is no clear and unequivocal rule of law requiring a special self-defense interrogatory or unanimity instruction beyond the standard instructions given. The court found no plain error and affirmed the conviction. View "Mavigliano v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

James D. Van Winter moved in with his sister in Wyoming due to financial difficulties. After a family gathering, a dispute arose when Van Winter felt slighted by a guest, leading to a heated argument with his sister. The situation escalated when Van Winter refused to leave, resulting in a physical altercation with his brother-in-law. During the struggle, Van Winter threatened his brother-in-law with a pocketknife, which was later wrestled away, causing a minor injury. Police responded, collected statements and evidence, and Van Winter was arrested. He denied any altercation occurred.The State charged Van Winter with aggravated assault and battery and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent. The District Court of Big Horn County presided over the jury trial, which resulted in convictions on both counts. At sentencing, the court orally imposed an 18–24 month prison term for Count I and a suspended 2–4 year sentence with probation for Count II. However, the written judgment imposed a suspended 3–5 year sentence and specified a three-year probation term. Van Winter appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present fingerprint evidence and challenging the discrepancy between the oral and written sentences.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that Van Winter failed to demonstrate prejudice from his counsel’s performance, as the fingerprint evidence would not have changed the trial’s outcome given the consistent witness testimony. Therefore, the district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial was affirmed. However, the Supreme Court found a material conflict between the oral and written sentences for Count II. It vacated the probationary term and remanded the case for the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral pronouncement and to determine the appropriate length of probation. View "Van Winter v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Joel Lee Wilson was charged with aggravated burglary, robbery, breach of peace, property destruction, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance after forcibly entering the Wolf family’s home in Casper, Wyoming. The home was occupied by Alexander Wolf, a sheriff’s deputy, his wife, and their daughter. Wilson and another man, Daniel Hemmer, knocked and scratched at the door before Wilson broke it open. Upon entry, Wilson confronted the residents and engaged in a violent altercation with Mr. Wolf, while Hemmer interacted with the daughter. The incident ended with both men fleeing after Ms. Wolf intervened with a firearm. Evidence included Facebook messages between Wilson and Hemmer discussing an opportunity to make money and plans for the night, as well as Wilson’s statements to police about collecting a debt.The case was tried before the District Court of Natrona County. At trial, Wilson argued he lacked intent to commit theft, a required element for aggravated burglary and robbery, emphasizing that no property was taken and challenging the admission of the Facebook messages as co-conspirator statements. The district court denied Wilson’s motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of intent based on the messages, the forceful entry, and the circumstances of the break-in. The jury convicted Wilson on all counts, and he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of intent to commit theft. Applying the standard of review that favors the State’s evidence and reasonable inferences, the court held that both direct and circumstantial evidence—including the Facebook messages, Wilson’s conduct, and the coordinated entry—supported the jury’s verdict. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding the evidence was sufficient to establish Wilson’s intent to commit theft. View "Wilson v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement officers responded to a domestic disturbance at a residence where they found the defendant holding his pregnant fiancée by the wrists. The officers directed him to remain seated on the kitchen floor during their investigation, which lasted about forty minutes. During this time, the defendant was told he was not under arrest but was not free to leave. He eventually admitted to restraining his fiancée by the chin and neck and taking her to the ground. He was later arrested and charged with several offenses, including aggravated assault and battery.After a preliminary hearing in the Circuit Court, the case was bound over to the District Court of Albany County. The defendant moved to suppress statements made before his formal arrest, arguing they were obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The State opposed, contending he was not in custody until his formal arrest. The District Court held a hearing, denied the motion to suppress, and accepted the defendant’s conditional guilty plea to aggravated assault, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed whether the conditional guilty plea was valid under Rule 11(a)(2) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that, although the plea was in writing, and both the State and the District Court approved it, the issue reserved for appeal—suppression of the defendant’s statements—was not dispositive. Independent evidence existed that could support conviction even if the statements were suppressed. Because the reserved issue was not dispositive, the conditional plea was invalid.The Supreme Court of Wyoming vacated the judgment of conviction and reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The main holding is that a conditional guilty plea is invalid if the issue reserved for appeal is not dispositive of the entire case. View "Kotrc v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law